ChristiansUnite Forums

Theology => Debate => Topic started by: brandplucked on July 12, 2005, 07:17:11 AM



Title: Did the Son of God have an origin? NIV heresy
Post by: brandplucked on July 12, 2005, 07:17:11 AM

Did the Son of God have an origin?  Micah 5:2

Some modern versions undermine and attack the eternal deity of the only begotten Son of God. Can you prove from the King James Bible that the Lord Jesus Christ had a beginning or an origin? No. Can you prove from the NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard, or the Jehovah Witness versions that He had an origin? Yes.

Micah 5:2 "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; WHOSE GOINGS FORTH have been of old, FROM EVERLASTING."

John Gill comments on the traditional, Trinitarian exposition of this verse and the meaning of the phrase "whose goings forth have been...from everlasting."

John Gill - "whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting; which is said of him, not because his extraction was from David, who lived many ages before him; for admitting he was "in him, in his loins," as to his human nature, so long ago, yet his "goings forth" were not from thence: nor because he was prophesied of and promised very early, as he was from the beginning of the world; but neither a prophecy nor promise of him can be called his "going forth"; which was only foretold and spoken of, but not in actual being; nor because it was decreed from eternity that he should come forth from Bethlehem, or be born there in time; for this is saying no more than what might be said of everyone that was to be born in Bethlehem, and was born there: nor is this to be understood of his manifestations or appearances in a human form to the patriarchs, in the several ages of time; since to these, as to other of the above things, the phrase "from everlasting" cannot be ascribed."

"As commonly interpreted - his eternal generation and sonship, the only begotten of the Father, of the same nature with him, and a distinct person from him; the eternal Word that went forth from him, and was with him from eternity, and is truly God. The phrases are expressive of the eternity of his divine nature and person; so as the former part of the text sets forth his human birth, this his divine generation; So Eliezer produces this to prove the name of the Messiah before the world was, whose "goings forth were from everlasting, when as yet the world was not created."

Jamieson, Faussett and Brown likewise explain: "goings forth . . . from everlasting--The plain antithesis of this clause, to "come forth out of thee" (from Beth-lehem), shows that the eternal generation of the Son is meant. The terms convey the strongest assertion of infinite duration of which the Hebrew language is capable (compare Psalm 90:2, Proverbs 8:22) Messiah's generation as man coming forth unto God to do His will on earth is from Beth-lehem; but as Son of God, His goings forth are from everlasting."

John Wesley tersely remarks: "Going forth - Whose generation, as he is the Son of God, equal with his father, is eternal."

Matthew Henry says: " How the Messiah is here described. It is he that is to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Here we have, (1.) His existence from eternity, as God: his goings forth, or emanations, as the going forth of the beams from the sun, were, or have been, of old, from everlasting, which is so signal a description of Christ's eternal generation, or his going forth as the Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, that this prophecy must belong only to him, and could never be verified of any other. It certainly speaks of a going forth that was now past, and must here be taken in the strictest sense (the same with Ps. 90:2, From everlasting to everlasting thou are God), and can be applied to no other than to him who was able to say, Before Abraham was, I am, Jn. 8:58."

The King James Holy Bible - Micah 5:2 "But thou Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; WHOSE GOINGS FORTH have been of old, FROM EVERLASTING."

This is the reading - "whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting" - found in the KJB, NKJV, Bishop's Bible, Coverdale's Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Revised Version, American Standard Version, the Hebrew Names Version, Webster's, the KJV 21st Century Version, and the Third Millenium Bible.

Miles Coverdale version 1535 -"And thou Bethleem Ephrata, art litle amonge the thousandes off Iuda, Out off the shal come one vnto me, which shall be ye gouernoure i Israel: whose outgoinge hath bene from the begynnynge, and from euerlastinge."

NASB - "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity."

The NASB at least agrees with the meaning found in the King James Bible in that it shows the two natures of the Son of God. He is both man and the eternal God. He was born in Bethlehem as a man, but His goings forth are from everlasting.

However, in the RSV, NRSV, and 2001 ESV we read: "But you, O Bethlehem Eph'rathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose ORIGIN is from of old, FROM ANCIENT DAYS."

The NIV - "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose ORIGINS are from of old, FROM ANCIENT TIMES."

The Holman Standard - "One shall come from you to be ruler over Israel for Me. His ORIGIN is from antiquity, from eternity."

The Jehovah Witness version, called the New World Translation, says, "whose ORIGIN is from early times, from the days of time indefinite."

Why do the NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman, and the JW bibles say “origin”? Christ did not have an origin or a beginning, but He Himself is the beginning, the source of all that exists. Revelation 22:13 tells us, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.” Compare these words spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ with those found in Isaiah 44:6, “Thus saith the LORD, the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”

The JW’s teach that Christ is not eternal God, but rather the first created being, and less by nature than God the Father. The true word of God says, "whose GOINGS FORTH have been from of old, FROM EVERLASTING." Remember, Christ said: "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world."

The KJB says his goings forth are from everlasting. Yet the NIV, RSV, ESV say his origin is from ancient times. Ancient times may be long, long ago, but it is not the same as everlasting.

The Hebrew word olam can be translated as “ancient” when applied to created things or people as it is in Psalm 22:28, “Remove not the ancient landmark”, or as in Isaiah 44:7, “since I appointed the ancient people”, but when the word is applied to God, it is rendered as “everlasting” as in Psalm 90:2, “from everlasting to everlasting Thou art God.”

The NIV concordance shows that they have translated this word as “everlasting” 60 times, as eternal or eternity 8 times, as “forever” 202 times, but as “from ancient times” only twice - one of them here in Micah 5:2 where they apply it to our Lord and Redeemer!

As you can see from the King James Bible and those that agree with it, they clearly teach the two natures of the God-man, the Lord Jesus Christ, who would come forth to be ruler in Israel. The first major version to alter the meaning and teach that the Son had an origin was the liberal RSV, which was put together by scholars who did not believe in the full deity of Christ. This version was generally rejected by Fundamentalist Christians as being " too liberal". Then later the NIV "softened up" the body of Christ with this heretical reading and now the ESV and Holman Standard continue this blasphemy.

I have heard some who try to defend the NIV, ESV reading of "origin" by telling us that His origin refers to His family lineage and they tell us His ancestry is from ancient times. There are two big problems with this explanation.

If the NIV, ESV, Holman versions wanted to communicate this idea, then just come out and say "whose FAMILY LINE is from ancient times". But they don't do this.

Secondly, if only the family line is from ancient times, then there is nothing special about the Son of God. Everybody's family line is from long ago and ancient times. We all come from Adam!!! It can be said of John, Peter, Paul, Joseph or anyone else that their family line is from long ago. So what is so special about this? It wouldn't prove His deity.

But if we say "His goings forth are from everlasting" then we have witness that He is the eternal Son of God, and the two natures of our Redeemer are clearly revealed. You cannot get this from the NIV, ESV, RSV, Holman and JW versions.


Will Kinney